Comment by hn_submit
6 hours ago
True, but you have to draw a line somewhere. The U.S. is one of the staunchest defenders of free speech but even there the line in the sand is calls for violence.
6 hours ago
True, but you have to draw a line somewhere. The U.S. is one of the staunchest defenders of free speech but even there the line in the sand is calls for violence.
This is genuinely laughable. The US routinely and violently shuts down free speech both domestically and abroad on a daily basis. It allows speech that does not materially threaten the economic superiority of its most privileged citizens and corporations and anything outside of that is subject to random and wanton violence. Any true “free speech absolutist” would easily recognize this, but it’s always the ones who loudly proclaim it that also think they should be able to literally murder people if they are even so much as mildly inconvenienced by someone doing something like blocking traffic.
> As soon as you start making allowances and exceptions the entire subject is moot.
> you have to draw a line somewhere.
So the entire subject is now moot, I gather.
Touché.
In US law, there are a lot more lines in the sand than violence. Take for example price coordination between competitors, or fraudulent financially material statements posted to twitter, libel & slander, defamation, etc.
If we're going with "free speech absolutism" outside the law, one notable "free speech absolutist" has drawn the line at sharing publicly-available info on a billionaire's private jet's comings and goings.